Draft Charge - LANL P-25

micefunctionalUrban and Civil

Nov 15, 2013 (3 years and 7 months ago)

73 views

Martin Cooper’s Notes from the Closeout



The following are a transcription of my notes from the EDM cost
-
and
-
schedule
review
closeout
.


They are probably filled with a certain amount of inaccuracy.


Allison Lung (J
-
Lab): $15.1 M+$0.3 M arithmetic errors+i
ncreased project management
makes the project cost $16 M. [I continually misused the term project manager and
project controller during the review.


In the end, the DOE document that I sent to Jehanne
added a full time project manager (physicist) and a kep
t the 40% project controller.


This
change added more than $1 M to the project that is not so apparent because escalation
was deleted.]


The separation of design costs from construction will be needed.


The
committee recommends full funding of the R&D prop
osal.


The project appears to have
adequate contingency and a generous labor estimate.


Interfacing between subsystems,
support equipment and shipping costs may be underestimated.


The project can be done
for $16+
-
2 M or < $20 M.


Be careful how you treat
CDR and R&D costs to keep the
TPC<$20 M, a surveillance breakpoint for DOE.


The goals of the R&D program are
well matched to a smooth transition to a construction project model.


Try to skip the
formal R&D process.


The R&D proposal is recommended.


Pay a
ttention to the details
of DOE order 413.3 and its grant guidance documents.


Your R&D project has been very
successful; you should advertise it more.


Bob Tribble (Texas A&M): The amount of float time is satisfactory.


You need to rework
the WBS elements
to provide more details on procurement and to separate out labor.


Get
rid of the word "Install" because it has a special meaning

to DOE.


Establish a
critical

path with a minimal set of elements and milestones that give the project better
definition, i.e
something that both EDM and DOE can manage towards.


Dave DeMille (Yale): The funding profile is reasonable.


Try to develop a profile that
meets the needs of both NSF and DOE, taking note of the fact that NSF often likes to
spend in a short period and DOE

likes continuous more flat profiles.


A construction start
in FY'07 is highly recommended so that there is no loss of momentum between the R&D
phase and the beginning of construction.


There is no viable model for phasing the
project.


Don Crabb: The cryo
genics work is in good shape.


The evaporative removal of 3He is a
real issue. The scale of the cryogenics has been achieved before.


Bill Louis (LANL
-
Chair): Management needs to be reorganized to separate the
spokespersons from the project manager, the la
tter reporting to the funding agencies.


The
scientific spokespersons set the specifications; the project manager appreciates the
specifications but runs the project.


Overall, Bill was very impressed.


He labeled us a

terrific collaboration.